[Note: Title changed in order to more accurately reflect Jack’s views.]
Over at Ethics Alarms, Jack wrote a post about John Kerry’s lies (short form: Kerry lies about having been against invading Iraq, lied about being Irish, plus the typical right-wing attacks on Kerry’s opposition to US war crimes in Vietnam). None of which interests me much – Kerry DID lie about Iraq and Irish, after all. Plus Kerry has hardly endeared himself to me lately by pounding the Syria drum, although his Mr. Magooing into a plausible diplomatic solution was sort of endearing.
I entered the thread because Jack in passing said Kerry was Jewish (he isn’t), which caught my interest. One thing led to another, and now we’re arguing about the term “undocumented immigrant” versus “illegal alien,” and I pretty much have no idea why.
Jack made the illegal-aliens-did-something-contemptable argument, which is a common enough argument so I thought it was worth bringing my response over here.
Re: “Contemptible.” It’s obviously not always contemptible to break the law. Otherwise, audiences would have contempt for Jean Valjean, rather than hoping he escapes from Javert. History and literature are both full of examples of people who broke unjust laws, and were still admirable, from the folks who ran the underground railroad, to LGB people who broke anti-gay laws, to stories like Mulan and Yentl. There is much more to morality than “obey the law “.
And our immigration laws are unjust; they are unfairly restrictive compared to the number of people our economy will inevitably bring in to work, and unreasonably make it illegal for people to earn a living through honest work that harms none. A law that tells a person to sit at home and watch their kids starve rather than go where there is work that is productive, socially beneficial, and will let them earn a living is an immoral law. Breaking such a law is not contemptible.
There is no law more firmly written in our character as humans, than the law that says we must eat and feed our family. I’m not going to hold a farm worker in contempt for doing that, and you shouldn’t either.
As I wrote that last paragraph, I thought “someone’s going to accuse me of making an appeal to objective morality.” I’ll head that off by pointing out that I specifically appealed to human character, not to a morality with extrahuman sources. My point is that it is cruel and unjust to order people to obey a law that they are not reasonably able to obey.
Obviously, to get the full flavor of my all-over-the-place (Is Kerry Jewish? Abortion! Immigration! Civility! How do you define right-wing! etc, etc) argument with Jack, you can go read the whole thing there. :-p
You said:
It isn’t a lie, but it’s one-sided advertising. Referring to “undocumented immigrant” is a softer term for illegal alien which avoids the word “illegal” emphasizes the immigrant part… just like referring to folks as “illegals” is a way of emphasizing only the illegality without much else.
I don’t buy into that language change, largely because I think that the illegality is relevant and important. Because the proposed term takes one of the most important issues out of the field I think the attempt to obscure it through a language change is dishonest. Similarly, I think that the claims that the language change is motivated solely by offense rather than “political expediency” are, in many cases, not really true.
Right. And people have argued for these changes in labels because they are trying to use the new label to affect public discourse, perception, and/or treatment. Are pro-lifers really anti-choicers? Are pro-choicers really pro-abortion? Do people literally mean it when they call their opponents “dehumanizing?” Etc.
I note the reference to Javert. That’s a classic ethical question regarding stealing to feed one’s dependents. And sure, in theory… but where do you draw the line? Let’s say that someone can house and feed their family… but they’re not far above poverty. Do you still excuse them for their theft?
Now, let’s make it a bit complex. Let’s say that their goal is not one of “avoid penury” or “feed family.” Let’s hypothesize that they’re trying to move up the social ladder: buy a bigger house, a better cell phone, a faster car, a better education; to start a new business. You know, the classic American Dream. Do they still get to steal the bishop’s silver candlesticks?
The Javert argument works well for Sudanese refugees. It works for some other, starving, homeless, illegal immigrants. It certainly doesn’t work for all of them. And without controlling illegal entry, we can’t filter EITHER for the ones we want, or the ones who need help the most. We only filter for willingness to break US law which, as an avenue to immigration goes, is not an ideal beginning.
“Illegal alien” seems to be the term you’re defending, and it’s not much better than “illegal.” “Alien” conveys “outsider,” “not one of us,” “totally unlike us” in a way that “immigrant” doesn’t. We refer to the US as a country of immigrants, not a country of aliens.
There’s also the level of “illegality” to consider. We don’t talk about businesses who hire undocmented immigrants as “illegal employers” even though (if I recall correctly, please correct me if I’m wrong) hiring people who aren’t allowed to work in the US is a greater offense, with stiffer punishments (if they’re actually ever enforced) than entering the country illegally.
If that’s the case, talking about “illegal immigrants” and not “illegal employers” is a way of very deliberately skewing the situation to label one group as the bad guys, despite the other lawbreaking going on. (Very few people would come to this country illegally if there weren’t employers willing to hire them without the appropriate documentation.)
I think it’s totally reasonable to talk about “illegal immigration” as a problem, but when you apply “illegal” to a person, and use that as your primary label for them, it reduces them to that single act. When you do that *on top of* not applying it to other people who’ve committed related crimes, it also creates a double standard, where the foreigner is judged much more harshly than the American, even when the foreigner’s actions are more defensible. (A small farm that *has to* illegally hire immigrants to keep putting food on the table of the farm owner would be in the same ethical boat as the immigrant seeking work illegally to feed their family. But if it’s just for money then, as you said, no, they don’t get to steal the bishop’s candlesticks.)
Also, the argument is not “Should all immigration be legal?” It’s “Is illegal immigration contemptible by definition?” Two very different things. Stealing bread to feed your family isn’t legal, nor should it be. But that doesn’t mean that *ethically* the person who steals bread to avoid watching their children starve is on the same level as the person who steals because it’s fun, or because it will make them rich.
Contempt should be reserved for people who deliberately harm or screw over others, not those who do what they have to in a desperate situation. Because, as you point out, the pool of people who immigrate illegally contains both sets of people, it’s wrong to say that *all* undocumented immigrants are contemptible or that illegal immigration is by definition a contemptible act. Show me the guy with all his basic needs met in Mexico who sneaks over the border because he wants a nicer car, and you may get me to hold him in contempt. But if you want me to view undocumented immigrants as a whole that way, then you need to prove that he, not the guy whose kids are going to bed hungry, represents the majority.
I can’t blame Kerry for claiming to be Irish. One day a year is just not enough for some people.
As far as “illegal alien” versus “undocumented immigrant,” I think the former is LESS misleading. “Illegal” suggests unlawful, which is accurate, and “alien” suggests a foreigner, which is also accurate. “Undocumented” is mostly accurate, but does not really address those who have “expired” documents (an overstay on a visa, or an expired green card, or someone who has a stay/cancellation of removal (though I think they get work authorization, which probably has a “document” connected to it)). And, “immigrant” is, perhaps the most misleading, because someone who comes on a tourist visa, or a student visa is not properly an “immigrant”; the same could be said of seasonal workers or migrant laborers. They do not necessarily want to immigrate. Many of them want to remain Mexican or (ugh) Canadian. The border control just makes it more difficult to leave (I think Amp did a post on this earlier).
But, what really cooks my beans is that a person needs “permission” from the government in order to work. That is a completely reprehensible notion. Conservatives should be all over the idea that the right to work is a “human, God-given right,” as Amp would say. ;) Unfortunately, they are so far down the liberal/progressive path of social micro-management that they, too, have caved on the notion that the government gets to decide who works, for how long, for what wage, and under what conditions.
-Jut
Good morning to all.
I would agree that it’s not per se contemptible to break the law if that’s the only way to feed one’s starving children. However, I don’t think that’s the situation facing the vast majority of illegal immigrants coming into the U.S.
The fact is, Mexico is not really that desperate a country when it comes to starvation. As you can see from this chart, it’s doing pretty well compared to most countries.
http://chartsbin.com/view/3355
I would agree that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to seek a better life for themselves and their families. But that motivation alone does not make them noble or justify illegal activities. After all, Bernie Madoff was seeking a better life for himself, too. The guy who broke into your home while you were in it was presumably seeking a better life for himself.
Jean Valjean was a sympathetic figure; but let’s not forget he was also a fictitious character. If we’re going to have a serious discussion about this serious issue, I don’t think we should begin by imagining that the people involved are all 21st-century Mexican versions of Jean Valjean.
I would suggest that those Americans who are truly concerned about the plight of poor people in Mexico should tithe ten or twenty percent of their income to a poor Mexican family — whatever percentage you can afford that will help even out the wealth disparity. But if you’re not doing that, then there’s nothing good or noble in demanding that your fellow Americans let in as many immigrants as may choose to come here, and ensure that they all receive the full panoply of taxpayer-sponsored benefits and services. Ultimately, you’re demanding that someone else pay for your own charitable impulses.
Second,
The United States has no obligation to meet your or anyone else’s definition of what’s fair and what isn’t, which is surely a subjective criterion not an objective one. Plenty of people think that our immigration laws are entirely fair (the efficiency of our immigration bureaucracy could certainly be improved, but that’s not a matter of law). There is nothing inevitable about our economy bringing people in to work. We have proof of this at this very moment, where illegal immigration from Mexico especially is actually dropping because people know they have a harder time finding work here than in previous years, and people in Poland tell me they are less likely to come to work here than in my and my parents’ generation because the EU makes it easier for them to find work in Poland. And if we make serious attempts to get the approximate one-third of civilian adults who are currently unemployed to work it’ll be even less attractive to non-citizens.
This actually drove me to look up logical fallacies. I knew it had to be a classic, and I was right. This is what’s known as a false dilemma, false dichotomy or bifurcation fallacy;
They could start their own businesses. They could foment revolution in the corrupt countries they reside in either at the ballot box or in the streets. There ARE other alternatives.
I wouldn’t say it’s contemptible. I would say it’s wrong.
KellyK, when you’re talking about the law it’s best to use the terms that describe legal categories, and “aliens” does just that. You may have your own impression of the word “alien”. Others have a different one. But what’s not debatable is that the word “alien” has been used to describe resident non-citizens in the law for our country’s entire history, and has been used in English law (which our country’s laws are derived from) since at least the 14th century. Non-citizen residents who are here legally see the word quite often, as their “green card” says “Resident Alien” right across the top of it.
Describing people as either “resident aliens” (who are legally entitled to be in the U.S.) or “illegal aliens” (who are not) is the most accurate way of describing people to whom our immigration laws apply. Any other terms, as JutGory provides some examples of, are rife with ambiguity and confuse the debate.
Speaking of which – JutGory, I need a bit of an explanation for this:
Are you saying that the government should not be able to make it illegal for an employer to employ someone who is in the U.S. illegally?
In this context I’m defending it, but FYI my own preferred term is “illegal immigrant” and not “illegal alien.”
Yes. To some degree that is intentional. “Immigrant” evokes the concept of someone who the country, through it’s majority-rule political system and system of long-standing laws, has decided to accept as a potential citizen. Illegal aliens/illegal immigrants are, for obvious reasons, not in that category.
I’m not sure what the point is.
You’re preaching to the choir, here. But be that as it may: the fact that there are employers who break the law isn’t incredibly relevant to the question of whether someone else is breaking the law. Nor is it relevant to the question of what the law is.
If you want to call them “illegal employers” it’s fine by me. Of course, many of those employers also hire green card employees and/or citizens, so the name isn’t really accurate.
And while I don’t support it, I think it’s worth pointing out the discrepancy here: with respect to illegal immigrants you seem willing to present a whole series of justifications which act as incentives for illegal immigration: this apparently would make you look the other way when they plan and execute an illegal entry into the US. With respect to employers, though, you appear to be imagining that Joe Employer (the person making the decisions) has absolute protection against all incentives, and that he’ll happily hire Charles Citizen even if Ivan Immigrant is waving facially-acceptable papers and offering to work for 75% of Charles’ pay. That isn’t how it works.
I don’t advocate for calling a person “illegal.” It makes no sense to say “Ivan is illegal;” what would that even mean?
I advocate for referring to a person as “an illegal immigrant.” That is a way of describing their STATUS. “Ivan is an illegal immigrant” makes perfect sense, just like “Ivan is a refugee.”
It’s appropriate because it’s relevant in the context where it is discussed. If we’re talking about presence, immigration, or employment in the US, for example, someone’s status as an illegal immigrant is damn important, just as someone’s refugee status is important if we’re talking about that. If we’re talking about whether or not Ivan liked the Joy Luck Club then it doesn’t really matter anyway.
Collectively, that is correct. If we’re discussing policy as it affects millions of people, then we need a way of distinguishing between the two groups efficiently. What defines an illegal immigrant as a member of a group, is not their personality, appearance, language, nationality, skills, desirability as a citizen, or anything else. What defines an illegal immigrant is that they are not complying with the immigration laws of the US. That is why we focus on the term.
I don’t think employers should remain unpunished. But as for the “double standard,” I’m perfectly OK with that.
After all, the primary job of the US government is to protect the interests and status of US citizens. That’s simply how a country works: the same is true for pretty much every other country out there. We give an unusually high regard to the rights of non-citizens as these things go.
Eh. That’s just polarization.
Pro-illegal-immigrant factions don’t simply argue (for example) that the US should generally reconsider its immigration policy. They also strenuously argue for everything from amnesty to ignoring immigration laws, to changing the very language as to avoid pointing out someone’s immigration status. The response, of course, is equally pointless, and is to focus on the illegality, or the lack of primary concern for citizens, etc.
Frankly I think that the failure is primarily on the side of the pro-illegal-immigration camp. How can you have a good faith argument about “fair ways to enforce immigration laws” or “fair ways to change immigration laws” with someone who simultaneously asserts that (a) immigration laws are inherently unjust; (b) it’s OK to ignore them if you choose; and (c) it’s immoral to enforce them?
I don’t personally hold contempt for illegal immigrants, but this argument is nonsensical. We’re talking in broad generalities and it makes no sense to insist on perfect consistency across the scale.
The issue is “on average,” not “as a whole.” The only common thread that illegal immigrants share is that they aren’t legally allowed to work/be in the US.
No; you don’t get to claim the default “I win unless you prove otherwise” category.
I start from the position that the us is a country with a set of laws passed and approved by its citizens, which are designed to protect the interests of its citizens, and which must be followed, at least within the national boundaries of the US.
The default in this country is “follow the law” (which is one of the reasons that we’re a good country to start with, BTW.) If you want to argue to change the law through the democratic process, I’m all for it. If you want to argue for an exception whereby people can break the law with impunity I’m open to discussing it, but the burden is on you to demonstrate the need for the exception; it isn’t on me to demonstrate that the concept of “follow the laws of the country” is generally what we do.
RonF @7:
I guess I am. But I would turn it around a bit. As an employer, if I have to fill out an employee’s I-9, I am acting as an enforcement agent for ICE. When I have the employee fill out a W-4, I am doing the IRS’s job by collecting and paying the employees income taxes.
But, frankly what business is it of the government if I hire an illegal alien? It is the business of the government because the government is incompetent; thus, I am assigned the tasks it can’t perform.
And, the hypocrisy is astounding! I can’t hire an illegal alien, but an illegal alien can get a TIN from the IRS, so that taxes can get paid from work that the individual who is not supposed to be here is not supposed to do. Follow the money! If you hire an illegal alien (and pay under the table), the government won’t get its FICA and you might pay them less than the minimum wage, which deprives the government of the taxes it would receive if you hired someone here legally.
But, how is a restriction on employing illegal aliens different from that town in Pennsylvania (I forget the details) that made it illegal to rent an apartment to an illegal alien? What about making it illegal for non-citizens to buy real estate? They do that in Mexico. Or, sell a car to an illegal alien? Or eat at a restaurant owned by an illegal alien (who is not supposed to have a lease for the business he is not supposed to have for the work he is not supposed to do)? And, how in the hell am I supposed to get some good llapingachos if they pass a law like that? Because, I guarantee you: it ain’t going to be from the Cubans!
So, what is it that makes employment or work authorization different than any other contractual relationship between two willing parties? Nothing (except the government’s long-standing intereference). But, arguably, the right to work, to create, and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, is more important than leases, cars, or llapingachos (Hey, I said arguably!). That is what liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about.
So, regardless of whether someone is here legally or not, conservatives should not buy into the notion that you need the government’s permission to work.
-Jut
If conservative = libertarian then you are correct, JutGory.
But I do not see why a conservative statist would resist the notion that the government can tell non-citizens they can’t work here, just as I don’t see why a liberal statist would reject the idea that union membership for public employees could be compulsory – whereas left-libertarians and right-libertarians would reject those things.
@ Jut:
“So, what is it that makes employment or work authorization different than any other contractual relationship between two willing parties?”
I see your point but I don’t think there can be any serious doubt that the federal government can constitutionally enact legislation forbidding the employment of illegal aliens under both the Commerce Clause and its authority to regulate immigration.
By the same token, the government could, ISTM, constitutionally forbid the transaction of ANY business with illegal aliens, even selling them groceries. However, just because Congress chooses to prohibit one form of business with illegals (employment) doesn’t require it to prohibit ALL forms of commercial engagement with illegals. It’s a well-established principle that legislatures have the right to be arbitrary in the laws they pass or don’t pass (provided they don’t otherwise exceed their constitutional constraints).
As for filling out paperwork that is used by the government for enforcement purposs, I don’t think a citizen has a general constitutional right to be spared the hassle and inconvenience of mandatory government paperwork. Therefore, I think your objections to it, though valid, go to the public policy merits of such requirements. If there were sufficient popular opposition to such paperwork requirements, then presumably the laws imposing those requirements would be repealed. It doesn’t follow that because you or I don’t want to assume the additional burden a law imposes, the law therefore must be invalid. We couldn’t function as a nation of laws if everyone had to agree on everything.
Hey, Conrad.
Most of us moderators don’t really like the phrase ‘illegal aliens,’ for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum. We don’t moderate it, though, figuring that it falls within the acceptable boundary of, “awful things people say that they ought to be free to say even on Ampersand’s website.*”
My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong, Ampersand) is that, “illegals,” used on its own, does not fall within that boundary, and is not considered acceptable here.
Please don’t use it in your posts here.
—Myca
Actually, I would go a step or two further. I propose that the Federal Government remove the privilege of participating in any Federal loan or deposit guarantee program from any bank, savings and loan, or any other financial institution that grants loans (car, mortgage, business, credit card) to any illegal alien (said term being much shorter than “non-citizen illegally resident in the country for whatever purpose, regardless of whether they intend to stay or not”). I propose that any employer who employs illegal aliens be blocked from participating in any Federal contract, whether as a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor, or consultant. Use of e-Verify in such an instance would be an affirmative defense against such penalties, though.
I’d also propose a Constitutional amendment that would explicitly withhold American citizenship from children born in the United States whose parents are not both either citizens or permanent resident aliens. Frankly, I think that the 14th amendment was only meant to ensure that people brought into this country against their will (i.e., slaves) and their children were to be considered citizens. I think the Supreme Court erred in holding that it covered the children of people who came into this country a) willingly and b) illegally, but so it has done and a fix is needed.
Let me expand on the last paragraph a bit. Such a Constitutional amendment would not be intended to bar granting such people citizenship. It would be intended only to prevent them from having such citizenship by right. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if, such an amendment having gone into effect, the Congress passed a bill granting such persons citizenship (or persons brought illegally into this country when they were minors by their parents or other relatives) on the basis of meeting certain criteria.
RonF:
But isn’t this true of children whose undocumented parents gave them no choice but to come?
On another note, I have a question regarding “illegal alien” versus “undocumented immigrant” that I think I have asked before, but I am not sure, and so I am going to ask it again: Assume for the moment that the need to distinguish legally between and among various kinds of “undocumented states” makes the terms “illegal alien” is both appropriate and necessary. (My own understanding is that the need is real, even if I am not totally convinced yet that “illegal alien” is the only possible terminology.) I am wondering if there are other terms that are merely descriptive when used in a legal context or to describe a legal status–which is, more or less, the argument of people who favor “illegal alien”–but that are used to dehumanize and discriminate against in ways that go beyond the legal when used in other contexts. I ask because I am wondering if comparing such instances might reveal something about what is really at stake in the debate over illegal versus undocumented terminology.
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
I am not sure what you are asking, but are these the sorts of answers you are looking for: “felon” (or “convicted felon”), “criminal,” “illegitimate child” (which, as a legal concept, is probably mostly gone, except maybe in the probate world), “juvenile delinquent.” Then, there is “sex offender,” “sexual predator,” and things along those lines. Then, there is the notion of “competency,” or, rather, “incompetancy” (it seems appropriate to spell it incorrectly) in many areas of the law. “Insanity” and “mental defect” as defenses to criminal charges. Landlord (It sounds so feudal)?
Are these the sorts of things you mean?
-Jut
“I’d also propose a Constitutional amendment that would explicitly withhold American citizenship from children born in the United States whose parents are not both either citizens or permanent resident aliens.”
In a couple of generations you’d have a large stateless population within the U.S.. What would you do then?
More importantly, criminalizing children for their parent’s crimes, or for committing crimes when instructed by their parents to do so, is wrong. Children are supposed to obey their parents and rely on their better judgement. When parents make mistakes, that should be on them.
“I’d also propose a Constitutional amendment that would explicitly withhold American citizenship from children born in the United States whose parents are not both either citizens or permanent resident aliens.”
In addition to what others have stated above – if an American citizen has a child with someone who is in the US legally, but not permanently (say, someone on a student visa), why should that person’s children be treated differently than the children of other American citizens?
And how would you check a father’s immigration status in the case where a woman doesn’t know it and they are no longer together? I’m not sure why it makes sense to deny citizenship to a child because his mother got pregnant after a one-night stand with a tourist.
The US is fairly exceptional in having birthright citizenship, most places have at least some parental requirement. All that would happen if it was revoked is that immigrants would gain citizenship from their parents. If they couldn’t establish this then you’d get citizenship based on statelessness.
US citizenship isn’t that great. I’m not sure trying to spread it around like herpes, because it’s easier than winning the immigration argument, is a good idea. If you are born in the US to french parent and then leave for france – are you really a US citizen? France will put you down as French based on parentage which seems sensible, but the US will put you down as US based on birth and chase you for a tax return for the rest of your life.
I’m expecting that if they can’t get jobs and they can’t do any banking or loans (see my other propositions) they’ll leave.
Damn. I worded it wrong. Such was not my intent. Thank you for pointing that out. Hm.
My intent is that a child born in the U.S. would automatically be a citizen if at least one parent was a citizen, or if neither parent was a citizen but both were resident aliens. Two citizens OR one citizen + one alien OR two resident aliens = natural-born citizen. One resident alien + one illegal alien OR two illegal aliens = non-citizen.
The citizenship of the child would default to that of the mother.
Also, what Alex said. Hell, in Japan there are people who have been living there for 5 generations who are not citizens. Birthright citizenship based purely on place of birth is not the international norm.
Ah, crap. Can you fix that for me, Amp? Pretty please? With sugar on it?
[Fixed! But next time, give me chocolate. Much better than raw sugar. –Amp.]
Just to get this straight, would the proponents of “undocumented immigrants” and the opposers of “illegal aliens” above favor the opening of boarders? Simply allowing anyone into the country who wants to be there? That’s the whiff I get, but I would be interested in hearing it from the people themselves.
Self-deportation? Really?
I would like immigration to be as easy as it was Europeans during the late 19th c. Not “open borders” but easy and multitudinous.
Thank you for an answer, Ben Lehman.
To the people you would want to exclude in your easy and multitudinous immigration, why would you want to exclude them? In other words, why not open borders?
Mostly screening for non-political criminals, I imagine.
“Mostly screening for non-political criminals, I imagine.”
So a German scientist who was convicted of a DUI once under the lower 0.05 limits in Germany. That sort of thing.
You’re being extremely disingenuous. I regret interacting with you.
As I wrote that last paragraph, I thought “someone’s going to accuse me of making an appeal to objective morality.” I’ll head that off by pointing out that I specifically appealed to human character, not to a morality with extrahuman sources. My point is that it is cruel and unjust to order people to obey a law that they are not reasonably able to obey.
Just a philosophical aside: The argument you gave is quite similar to one that Thomas Aquinas gives in his discussion of property in the Summa Theologiae. Aquinas thinks that, if person A needs to take some of person B’s stuff in order to survive, then the stuff wasn’t actually person B’s property.
You call this an appeal to “human character,” but it’s really an appeal to human nature: humans naturally require certain things to live well, like food, and so there’s a natural principle or rule that guarantees us the right to use them. If we use the term “law” instead of “principle or rule” — which doesn’t seem like a big shift — then we’re using exactly the same kind of reasoning as conservative Catholics — big fans of Aquinas — when they claim that homosexuality is against natural law. On a natural law approach, we can read moral principles off of human nature, and these are applicable to all human beings everywhere whatever their religious beliefs, i.e., natural laws are objective. There are additional laws given to us by God, but only devout believers can be expected to understand and follow them.
@24: Why would you want open borders? How would America benefit from an unrestricted inflow of say 100-150 million poor, uneducated, non-English-speaking people having no connection to our culture or values?
@24 again: Sorry, I see that you don’t literally favor “open borders” but rather “easy and multitudinous” immigration. Nevertheless, how does America benefit from this, in your opinion?
I favor open borders, at least to the extent that people should be allowed to live and work here, unless there is a clear reason (like having committed a violent crime) to exclude them as an individual.
I believe that forbidding informal immigrants to work is astonishingly cruel, and also sits oddly with the claim that they’re too expensive to have around.
Also, one unintended(?) side effect of current law and practice is that Social Security is paid by many employers of informal immigrants as part of covering up– but that SS payments will *not* be available to those immigrants.
On the issue of labels, I frankly don’t see what is dehumanizing about labeling someone who enters the country illegally an “illegal alien.” “Dehumanizing” means to render someone less than human, doesn’t it? If someone robs a bank, we call them a criminal. Is that dehumanizing? Seems to me “criminal” denotes a HUMAN BEING who has broken the law. “Criminal” doesn’t imply the bank robber is a aardvark or a parakeet or any other sub-human species.
Someone please explain why it’s ok and not dehumanizing to call a bank robber a “criminal” but it’s dehumanizing to call someone an “illegal” alien.
Also, the term “undocumented” immigrant is an inaccurate euphemism. To label someone “undocumented” implies they have a right to be here but simply lack the proper papers. However, the problem isn’t the lack of papers per se but the lack of a right to be here. It’s treating an actual, intentional violation of U.S. law as the linguistic equivalent of some kind of paperwork mixup.
I can see why those who favor more-or-less open borders would want to use a euphemism to obscure the law-breaking inherent in illegal immigration, and I can further see why they want to enforce that change of language in the speech of others (however much closer this may nudge us to a “1984” level of thought control). But apart from the rhetorical advantage this gives to proponents of open immigration, I can’t see any honest justification for requiring the use of a term like “undocumented worker” over the perfectly accurate and non-dehumanizing “illegal alien.”
@31: The idea behind prohibiting illegal aliens from working is to deter the practice of illegal immigration. One could characterize incarceration as “astonishingly cruel,” but if this form of “cruelty” didn’t exist, there would probably be a lot more rapes and burglaries, among other crimes.
The problem is that it doesn’t deter illegal immigration. Recessions and depressions, however, do deter illegal immigration.
To elaborate a little on my last comment. Laws prohibiting illegal immigrants from working don’t deter illegal immigration. If, however, you had buy in on those laws from citizens and business, that would deter illegal immigration. The problem is that, no matter how much we protest otherwise, we really do want to employ illegal immigrants. We can pay less since those immigrants have no legal protections, so that lack of leverage makes them desirable employees.
Immigrants (legal or illegal) respond to incentives, and one of the most prevalent incentives is their perceived ability to work and make money. It would be very strange if you are arguing that an immigrant wouldn’t jump the border if the economy meant there was little work, but that the same immigrant would ignore a legal status that had the same effect.
So when you say “it doesn’t deter,” what I think you mean is that the current situation doesn’t really have that effect. That is largely true: the current laws are poorly enforced, rarely enforced, widely violated, and therefore have a very small deterrent effect. If you are an illegal immigrant (especially one who speaks some English) then once you have managed to get some fake documents or a SS# you are very unlikely to actually get caught, and you are likely to be able to work under the table or even at a “normal” job using a fake SS#.
But in the eyes of those who want to decrease illegal immigration*, this is an argument for “more, better, enforcement” and not “oh never mind, let’s stop trying.”
And just as a reminder: I would like to do that in conjunction with vastlyincreasing legal immigration. I’m not aiming for “keep everyone out;” I’m aiming for “change and enforce the laws as needed to gain control over immigration, so we can selectively admit those who we want, while denying admission to the people who we don’t choose to admit.
Even then I suspect I will have a fundamental disagreement with many on this thread: by and large I think we should be setting immigration policy by asking the question “what will benefit US citizens?” and not “what will benefit non-citizen applicants?” In my ideal immigration situation we would admit tons more people, but would retain our own ability to evaluate, judge, and select between them.
@36: You don’t think that laws prohibiting illegal aliens from working here provide ANY degree of deterrence, even at the margins?? Actually, your own post seems to contradict this. You just said yourself that illegal aliens who work here have to accept lower pay and no legal protection.
I sense that you are confusing deterrence with prevention. I would agree that laws against the hiring of illegal immigrants don’t utterly prevent such practice from taking place. By the same token, laws against child abuse don’t utterly prevent abuse from ever taking place. But they do tend to deter the practice.
Also I disagree with your contention that, “no matter how much we protest otherwise, we really do want to employ illegal immigrants.” Clearly, there are certain employers who want to employ illegal immigrants, but I don’t think they constitute a majority of employers, let alone a majority of the people in the U.S. You’re statement seems akin to saying, “no matter how much we protest otherwise, we really do want to sniff bath salts.” Yes, SOME people want to sniff bath salts, but they don’t speak for everyone.
Where is your evidence that “we” — meaning a majority of the people of the U.S. — favor giving illegal aliens full access to employment?
@37: “by and large I think we should be setting immigration policy by asking the question ‘what will benefit US citizens?” and not “what will benefit non-citizen applicants?’”
This is absolutely right. There seems to be an unspoken sentiment amongst open-borders folks that, since the U.S. has generated so much wealth for itself over the last couple of centuries, it’s now incumbent on us as a country to share the wealth with whomever wants to come here and partake of it. I’d really like to know whether any of the people who feel this way practice the same policy in regard to their homes and personal property. Do they allow less-well-off strangers come into their homes and take or use whatever they want, or do they “cruelly” reserve the right to say “Sorry, this house belongs to me and you can’t live here”?
I don’t know what the “right” number of people to allow in legally should be, but that question should only be answered from the perspective of what is best for America.
Anyone who claims that immigration hurts the economy (“taking our jobs”) is ignorant or lying. That is not how immigration works. Economically, except possibly if you have an extreme welfare state (we don’t), immigration is always good.
I seriously doubt the US would receive 100-200 million immigrants immediately. I’m trying to figure out a plausible scenario. I mean you’re talking like the entire population of Mexico is going to move here, leaving behind an abandoned country reverting to state-of-nature. (I’ll note that scenario is the _low end_ of your estimate). It’s just not going to happen. If it does uh… I guess we’ll just annex the unoccupied land where Mexico used to be?
Over the course of 100-200 years it’s likely the US could receive that amount of immigrants. Which would be beneficial to our economy and also our culture and also the world environment so, hey, fantastic for us, good for everyone else too.
I’m not sure that anti-immigration laws are unjust (i.e. I’m not making the same argument that Amp is) but I’m damn sure that they’re stupid in terms of national and personal self-interest.
yrs–
–Ben
Conrad @ 38 beat me to it. Who’s “we”? Don’t include me in that. Don’t include my employer, who among all the other employment notices up in the cafeteria has one that lets us know that they use eVerify. Sure, there are some employers who are unethical. I’ve long held that this is one reason why the GOP has been less than enthusiastic about reforming our border control laws and immigration laws.
That buy-in seems to be what the sign that the woman in the picture is holding is all about. Deportations have increased, which can only result from increased enforcement of the law, which you’re not going to get unless there’s buy-in. Laws in and of themselves do not stop people from performing illegal acts. All they can do is punish you for acting illegally. If the cost of the punishment * the odds of getting punished > the reward for committing the act, deterrent value increases. Increasing deportations – and the other measures I’m proposing – increase deterrent. When the government ignores enforcing the law, deterrence decreases.
Heck, that’s part of the gun-related civil rights argument. Those in favor of civil rights will quickly tell you that we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.
Well. Let’s keep insults out of it, shall we?
1) Economics are not the be-all and end-all of the situation. There’s also culture, function, non-economic benefits, etc. I can’t imagine you’d argue solely for economic issues (gentrification, anyone?)
2) Growth in “the economy” doesn’t always distribute well, or equally, to the population. Something that is good for “the economy” may well be bad for you, or your preferred group/area/etc. I don’t know if you would properly term it as “lying” when people focus on a more limited area of the economy.
3) As it happens, many pro-illegal-immigration and open borders activists are ALSO people who believe that health care, housing, education (presumably including advanced special education,) and so on are “human rights.” And the reverse is even more true; it seems like the majority of people who argue for vastly increased immigration (especially when it focuses on the rights of immigrants) are also in favor of vastly increased social welfare programs.
Tomorrow?
No.
In a couple of years?
Sure.
Every illegal immigrant and legal immigrant who came without family invites their family, the majority of who agree to come; (b) a significant portion of citizens in various countries which are unusually poor/uninhabitable/unappealing/dangerous decide to come.
Yeah, that isn’t going to happen. But then again, you’ve got a whole planet to draw from, at least in theory.
I should hope so; over the course of 200 years we’re likely to have a hell of a lot more than that in citizens. (I think you may be making an error here, because I don’t think you’re accounting for population growth in potential immigrants.)
Eh. Maybe. that is predicated on growth.
Do tell! How do you get that?
Um, no. If you’re a poor mud-hut farmer who subsists on plants and bugs and you come to the US and start eating burgers, living in heated homes, and driving to your new computer job, you’re causing much more damage.
This thread is killing me, because there’s so much I want to reply to, but I can’t because if I start replying that would be committing myself to not getting much cartooning done today. Aaargh.
@ 40: Merely asserting that “immigration is always good” doesn’t make it so. If you have some kind of analysis as to what the effects would be of facilitating mass immigration from all corners of globe — I assume you are not proposing to admit JUST the Mexicans — please share it. If you don’t have that kind of substantiation for your assertion, I’d suggest reconsidering your characterization of your opponents as lying or ignorant.
Your comment seems to reflect that you don’t have any clear idea of exactly how many people around the world would choose to relocate to the U.S. if we permitted them to do so. I don’t know how one can seriously advocate such a policy without at least attempting to determine that number.
One thing seems clear: The people who would be most inclined to come to the U.S. would be those with the least to lose by abandoning their native lands. Therefore, common sense suggests that we would be welcoming in groups that are disproportionately poor, uneducated, and unskilled, even by the standards of their own countries. What reason is there to think that that tens of million new immigrants who cannot scratch out a decent living in their native countries would come here and suddenly be able to support themselves and their offspring?
Whether or not we have an “extreme” welfare state, there would obviously enormous costs associated with housing, educating, feeding, clothing, and providing health care for any new resident of the U.S. who cannot afford these things on their own. How would you come up with the money to meet the public costs of these necessities on behalf of tens of million new immigrants? Please don’t try to tell me that the taxes to be paid by these largely unskilled laborers would offset the costs of including them within the protection of our already strained safety net.
The last time I checked, there was no general shortage of labor in the U.S. Unemployment is high and the labor participation rate is already fairly pathetic. Technology advances mean there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for unskilled workers to eke out a decent wage. Given these facts, what makes you think that the U.S. could absorb an influx of say 100 million new unskilled and uneducated immigrants from around the world without experiencing any negative effects?
I think the 100-150 million figure is a conservative one if the U.S. did, in fact, open the borders to anyone in the world who wanted to come here.
And it seems fair to assume that the overwhelming majority of them would come here specifically in order to get the guaranteed food, housing, education, etc. that comprise our “social safety net.”
Rather than speculate, let’s invite pro-open-borders folks to initiate a pilot program in which they open their own homes and the contents thereof to anybody who wants to come and help themselves. Perhaps only a few will show up; perhaps many more. Once we get the data, we’ll have a better idea of whether this model should be scaled up to the country as a whole in the form of open borders.
As compared to American citizens, sure it’s less. As compared to the economy they come from it’s a much better situation. It doesn’t serve as a deterrant to illegal immigration if their economic prospects in the US are better than in their native country.
I’ll tell the story again. In the 30’s, my grandfather, a Hungarian Jew, illegally immigrated to Germany because the prospects of making money were much better there. He had full knowledge of what would happen to him if he were to be caught. That didn’t deter him and many others from illegally crossing the border and working illegally in Germany.
What kind of deterrence do the laws you’re talking about have that the threat of death does not?
I agree with you on a number of points, Conrad, except this one:
“What reason is there to think that that tens of million new immigrants who cannot scratch out a decent living in their native countries would come here and suddenly be able to support themselves and their offspring?”
Answer: the fact that that’s what happened to most of our previous immigrants. My great-grandparents came from Italy as impoverished subsistence farmers; they did all right here. Not all economic failures in a person’s life are attributable to their own lack of skill or perseverance; environment matters and a large proportion of immigration is spurred by the recognition on the part of the immigrant that their local environment is untenable, but that they could make it somewhere else.
@ 46: I think we’re talking about two different things. I believe you’re arguing that laws preventing an illegal immigrant from working in the U.S. don’t provide deterrence because those law aren’t being effectively enforced and therefore the illegal immigrant gets a job here anyway (and that job is better than what he or she had in his/her own country). That may be true as far as it goes. However, that doesn’t mean the existence of such a law provides no deterrence whatsoever. The law undoubtedly serves to deter SOME people from entering the U.S. illegally, and would do so even more if it were being enforced better.
I don’t think deterrence is a strictly yes/no proposition. There are degrees of deterrence, and of course the law we’re talking about is not as effective a deterrent as would be a law that permitted summary execution of anyone caught in the U.S. illegally. Even the latter might not eliminate every instance of an illegal border crossing, but it would certainly serve as a deterrent to many people.
What percentage of current immigrants would it be a deterrent to?
Look, if your choices are continued subsistence level existence with very real and regular threat of starvation and disease for your family vs. good possibility of economic advancement allowing your family fortunes to improve but with risk of death for yourself, it’s not hard to imagine what choice is going to be made.
Will the laws you’re talking about serve as a deterrence for those living well above subsistence level? Yeah. Are those folks the image of the illegal immigrants we try so hard to keep out? No.
You just agreed that economics have an effect, didn’t you? See #35.
There will always be SOME people who desire to immigrate because their options are worse, or because they have a small scope of knowledge, or because they have bad judgment, or because they have different values. But so be it: there are still a lot of people who, apparently, can have their choices affected by economic and other factors. We know this now, because they make new choices based on the depression, even though the depression-era USA is still quite a bit better than many other countries and even though it hasn’t really changed the availability of other services which make the USA so appealing.
Those people are easy. Let’s say that the economy gets back in shape by 2016: making new laws so that Ivan Illegal Immigrant experiences economic consequences which are akin to those in 2008 is not especially difficult.
Making other laws would have an even greater incentive. Eliminating amnesty, for example. (Occasional random reinforcement is one of the best ways to create perseverance.)
Making other economic laws would have yet another incentive. For example, we could simultaneously (a) crack down on cash workers; (b) raise taxes, including the taxes of low-income earners; and (c) provide enhanced tax benefits, focusing on low-income earners. That makes it more expensive for illegal immigrants: they pay more in taxes (since they have to work with a fake SS#) but they don’t qualify for benefits. And so on.
again: we need to admit lots of immigrants. But there are a lot of reasons to select out the ones for whom “fuck the law, I’m doing what I want” is their first interaction.
Regarding “deterrence,” keep in mind that it can have exactly the opposite of the intended effect: How Building The Border Wall Increased Immigration From Mexico.
I agree with what you’re saying in the abstract but I think you are ignoring some important context. If the U.S. in 2013 were suffering from a labor shortage and needed a bunch of unskilled workers, then, sure, that would give some basis for hope that multitudes of new immigrants could be economically self-sufficient. But that’s not exactly the case, is it? There may be some level of demand for extreme low-wage, unskilled workers in the U.S. , but it can’t be very high or those jobs wouldn’t be so low-wage to begin with. The idea that we could import tens of millions of low-skill, uneducated, non-English-speaking workers into the U.S. in the 21st century and expect them to be largely economically self-sufficient is a pipe dream. We needed a lot of unskilled labor to build railroads and the like, but that has all changed. Boston’s Big Dig was recognized as the largest public works project ever and, at its peak, it only directly employed something like 5,000 workers. Moreover, I would imagine most of those 5,000 were fairly well-educated and certainly well-trained in their trades.
People are making the mistake of assuming that because the U.S. can seemingly absorb “x” number of immigrants into American society, and this has been “good,” therefore 100x immigrants will be that much better.
“Fuck the law, I’m doing what I need to do to ensure the well being of my family,” seems a lot more likely than your formulation.
I have no idea what you’re saying in your first paragraph. Yes, I said that economics have a large effect on immigration. Is that just a lead in to your subsequent paragraphs or did I miss something? Because I don’t think that we’re disagreeing on those points.
We may have a disagreement over whether we, as a society, want illegal immigrants or not. We may disagree on how open we want the borders to be. I do think we agree, at least generally, on what are likely to be the most effective ways to reduce illegal immigration.
It is interesting to imagine an alternate history where there were no border controls. In that case california and texas would now be majority mexican (see the middle east for what majority expatriate areas look like) and mexico would be depopulated (see moldova for what abandoned nations look like).
Now eventually counties level up due to trade. We can move goods and capital, rather than people. Immigration from mexico is much lower now than it was, because mexico is much wealthier. The above scenario wouldn’t happen now. I think that is a good argument for restricting immigration, we have avoided a disaster that the open borders crowd would have inflicted had their policies been introduced. And this was far more humane than allowing massive disruption through population movements. It isn’t like this abandons people to poverty, you can still maintain gains from trade without population movement.
While Varusz is obviously trolling, I think the question of why people who have commited crimes and served their time, and paid their debt to their home society, should be banned from the right to economically better themselves through immigration. Ex-criminals already suffer plenty of informal discrimination, which not only causes suffering to them, but to their families.
The exclusion of ex-criminals from civil rights that others enjoy, such as voting, is usually extremely harmful. I don’t see why the right to emigrate should be any different.
Personally, I can see why one would want to prevent people who are actively fleeing justice (not counting political prisoners, of course) from entering a country, but other than that…? If they’ve served their sentence and complied with the law since then, what is the moral basis for excluding them from immigration while other, possibly less needful, families are permitted it?
The economic case in favor of immigration is fairly open and shut, not simply in terms of GDP, but also that it is generally beneficial to all sectors of the economy. If you would like to read more about this, “The Impact of Immigration on Economic Well-Being” by Barry Chiswick (who apparently works at AEI so not exactly a hippie) seems to be a decent summary that I turned up by googling. It has math.
I am sorry to not have a better reference, but the positive economic impact of immigration is so well-known that in my PoliSci/IR education I never had it directly addressed.
I’m certainly willing to entertain the idea that the consensus of political economists is wrong. But I’m not willing to entertain it purely because someone asserts it. Make an argument with either data or econ calculations or national-scale examples.
Claims that 200 million people will immediately descend on the US are patently absurd. I know that anti-immigration (and sometimes pro-immigration) arguments like to portray the world as a infinite mass deeply yearning to come to the US but that’s just not true. Regardless, I’d be perfectly happy with an arbitrary 10 million a year cap on a first-come first-serve basis; I severely doubt that we would approach that cap after year 5 or so. As a counter-example, when the US allowed mostly unrestricted immigration from Europe, Europe did not spontaneously empty out and turn into a wasteland (despite multiple brutal wars).
Obviously the cultural benefits are arguable, because culture is to a certain degree aesthetic. I think that the greatest strength of American culture is its heterogeneity and cosmopolitan nature, and that immigration improves and strengthens that. However — regardless of how you feel about that specifically — immigrants are generally highly patriotic, large tax payers, involved in their communities, and donate to charitable causes. I think all of these are fairly inarguably beneficial to American culture.
Hugh: FWIW, I don’t have anything against ex-cons immigrating on a case by case basis, I just don’t think that they should be automatically granted permission.
@ 56: I found the 1982 paper you cited by Prof. Chiswick (albeit under a slightly different title), but I don’t see where it refutes the points I’m making about unrestricted, mass immigration. If you look at his conclusions on page 310, he acknowledges that the benefits that generally come with immigration don’t obtain to the extent that the immigrant population is unskilled and/or are entitled to government benefits.
Understand, I don’t dispute that immigration is a good thing to the extent the receiving country can use the additional labor the immigrants can supply. It doesn’t follow that the admission of tens of millions of unskilled, non-English speaking immigrants would constitute a net gain for the U.S., either economically or “culturally.” (I hasten to even add this, but is it really a good idea to introduce mass populations of ethnic groups to the U.S. whose sole purpose for being in the U.S. will be to partake in the social safety net?)
Ah. I found it in his 2005 book. Regardless, the basic math hasn’t changed, and it’s fairly non-controversial.
You seem to feel like there’s some class of immigrants that are just somehow … lazier? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But, generally speaking, that’s not the case. Immigrants tend to be the most ambitious, hardest working, and most upwardly mobile members of their societies. In this country, they start businesses (starting new businesses is a huge driver of economic and job growth) at a much higher rate than the local populace. This is because the choice to immigrate is inherently an ambitious choice.
Now, obviously, drastically reducing our immigration bureaucracy would reduce this effect somewhat: we are currently selecting for people who are very lucky and good at navigating federal bureaucracy. However I don’t see this as a bad thing, and I can’t imagine you do either (maybe you like federal bureaucracy? If so you’re in the vast minority of Americans.)
Of course, some immigrants will be unlucky, or layabouts, or disabled, or elderly, and will form a drain on our government. But for this effect to counteract the extra revenue gained from the general productive tendencies of the immigrant population is highly unlikely, particularly given how minimal our welfare state is. If you are concerned about that, let’s instead be gradualist: raise immigration cap by 1 million a year and stop when that increase results in economic cost rather than benefit. I think we would run out of willing / able immigrants well before we ran into a situation where the immigrant population was less productive per capita than the non-immigrant population.
(of course, given that we are already spending billions of immigration enforcement and talking about much more expensive projects you should really account the cost-savings there as well.)
Can you document any instance, where, in the context of modern nation states, free immigration (not forced, not refugees) has been a net drain on a country? Any country? Anywhere in the world? Ever?
yrs–
–Ben
P.S. As to the issues of language: immigrants do of course face difficulties with language and adapting to a new society. However, the costs for this are generally borne by the immigrants themselves; I don’t think it’s a particularly bad issue from a state level. It would mean a small economic benefit to bilingual Americans (and I admit to some self-interest here) but that is already the case in many cities in the US (i.e. in the Portuguese neighborhood you must know Portuguese to get a service job) and it’s not exactly a cultural crisis.
In all honesty, I’m not immediately aware of any modern* nation state which HAS free immigration, i.e. “open to anyone who wants to come in.” Since you chose that example, you can probably list a few; which nation states were you thinking of?
*which we may be defining differently.
I meant “voluntary immigration that is not the result of violence” not “completely open borders.”
If there was such a thing as “too much immigration” there’d be such a case out there, right?
I think I am missing something in your argument. Help me out:
From my perspective, it seems like most modern countries (and especially the “better” ones) have pretty restrictive immigration policies, and have for at least some time. Given that, it’s not clear that there WOULD be a case out there, since it hasn’t been allowed to happen.
When you say “If there was such a thing as “too much immigration” there’d be such a case out there, right?” you must think it’s reasonably possible. Which countries are you thinking would be reasonable candidates?
In every case I know of, immigration (of the voluntary sort) provides a boost to economy and society, and the larger the immigration, the larger the boost.
I’m just puzzled as to why everyone is _so certain_ that there’s such a thing as “too much immigration” when neither theory nor experience backs that up. Surely you must have _some_ reason to believe that?
@59: I just do not understand the basis of your belief that if we invite in tens of millions of unskilled, uneducated, non-english-speaking immigrants, on the guaranty of government-subsidized housing, food, health care, education, etc., those people start businesses and otherwise prove to be net producers of wealth rather than net consumers of wealth. It’s not surprising that those who immigrated to the U.S. in the 1890s, when being in America was much more of a sink-or-swim proposition, proved to be ambitious and hardworking. That’s not the situation your new waves of immigrants would be coming into if we are essentially guaranteeing that the government will take care of their basic needs.
Also, related to this, I have to take exception to your repeated assertion that the U.S. constitutes only a “minimal welfare state.” The “free” stuff guaranteed to the poor — housing, food, health care, education, Obamphones, etc. — adds up to a lot of money. I don’t have a link for this, but I read somewhere recently that a single woman living in poverty would need a job paying something like $46,000 to “break even” in relation to the value of all the various forms of welfare she receives. Just a public education alone — which isn’t even “welfare” — costs north of $25,000 per pupil in a lot of city school districts. I think you are vastly underestimating the potential costs of supporting tens of millions of new immigrants while at the same time vastly overestimating the likelihood they will prove to be economic self-sufficient.
You’re sure, are you, that it isn’t because we filter the ever loving hell out of them, so that the ones which are not ambitious, hard working, upwardly mobile, and competent don’t end up having the opportunity to start new businesses?
If Ivan Illegal Immigrant needs to carefully work extra hard and save six months’ salary and take a risky border trip and travel for a while on a container ship and forgo seeing his family until/unless he can manage to save enough up… yes, Ivan is likely to be incredibly highly motivated to succeed once he gets here, and will work his ass off.
But what if immigration were like moving to another state? Well, you’ve moved, right? You’ve known some people who have moved, for sure. Do you think that the people who moved were significantly different than those who stayed?
There can be “too much” of almost everything, in my experience. Why would this be different? But before we get into the new hypothetical, can we get to the specifics of which countries you were thinking about?
Immigrants are a net boost to the economy. This is undeniable. Yet you keep looking for new ways to deny it.
As for those “uneducated unskilled” immigrants that’s largely not the class of people that the US is turning away. By and large we are turning away educated, skilled people who are middle class in their country of origin.
Coming to the US is not free. Immigration is generally only available to people who have the means to immigrate and are willing to invest substantial resources into moving. Of course, they get something out this as well: a stable modern economy, rule of law, and a democratic open society. All of these will provide major productivity boosts to these immigrants that they likely do not have in their home country.
When I talk about the size of welfare states, I mean that it is, theoretically, _possible_ that there could exist a country with a large enough welfare state that this wasn’t true. However, as far as I know, there’s never been a case in a modern state context where non-coerced immigration was a net drain on the economy.
Like I said, I’d be perfectly happy with a gradualist approach as a compromise to nativist insecurities. But our current immigration policy is extremely broken and basically leaving huge amounts of economic growth on the table in service of largely irrational fears. I personally don’t think we can, as a society, afford to do that.
It seems like we’re going to go around on this without getting anywhere, so unless you have something substantially new to say, or something substantially new to ask, I’m going to bow out.
Huh? By “turning away” do you mean “denying applications?” Because there’s a distinct disincentive to apply, given that we hardly accept anyone. illiterate poor people don’t apply. It dosn’t mean they wouldn’t walk across a border, if allowed to do so.
Of course, as I’ve said: educated skilled people (especially with startup capital) are the type of people we should be letting in.
But if you’re arguing for a large change in policy, how are you determining that there won’t be changes in behavior? It’s a bit like pointing out that Harvard mostly rejects smart people: yes, but that’s because the non-smart ones rarely apply since they know they won’t get in.
Still, this is an interesting statistic. Where are you getting it?
Of course.
Some might suggest that you would find an example in some parts of Europe.
Because as far as my limited worldwide knowledge goes, I cannot think of a modern and attractive country which has not severely limited immigration. I.e. “there has never been a case” because the case was not POSSIBLE.
Can you?
If not: Dude. how can you not either (a) acknowledge that this is a serious hole in that argument, or (b) provide some examples? Otherwise it’s like claiming that sharks are safe because they don’t cause any problems for lake trout.
Goody! Me too!
Or, perhaps as a compromise to counter the potentially idiotic hubris of people who appear absolutely certain that they can predict the performance of an immense and incredibly complex political, economic, and social system, beyond what has been tested to date, based on theory.
“In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, that is rarely the case.”
@Ben: Well, I’m confused. What criteria should be used to assess ex-cons’ immigration eligibility?
Even if you’re letting some of them through and keeping some of them out, you’re still depriving some people of a civil right based on their past.
It’s like saying ‘Well, we’ll let some ex-cons vote, some not, on a case by case basis’.
Ben – As with Conrad, I think many of your points have validity. This:
“Immigrants are a net boost to the economy. [ergo, stop worrying about numbers]”
is not. Something can be a net good but nonetheless pose problems in its arrival or existence which place a limit on a system’s ability to integrate new “net goods”. If magical space aliens show up at your house every day and shoot dead one of your children, then use their hypertechnology to create and insta-grow two genetic offspring of yourself and your spouse, you have a net increase in the number of children whose love you enjoy. But you would find the process disturbing enough that you would prefer it not take place at all. But why? It’s a net good!
“Net good” may be, but is not automatically, a sufficient justification.
“Or, perhaps as a compromise to counter the potentially idiotic hubris of people who appear absolutely certain that they can predict the performance of an immense and incredibly complex political, economic, and social system, beyond what has been tested to date, based on theory. ”
Yes and well said. Ben’s whole argument rests on the premise that, because immigration has been a net good in the careful, limited way it has been practiced over the years, it will still be a net good in the future no matter how many new immigrants are brought in. I can’t think of anything that works this way in real life, i.e., anything that cannot be the “thing” in the saying, “too much of a good thing.”
To use a simple analogy, suppose a small business owner has added 20 employees over the years. He notes that such new hires have added value to the company. Would he therefore necessarily be wise to go out one day and hire 800 new employees?
It’s POSSIBLE, if we work some additional details into the hypothetical, that the 800 new hires would make sense for this business owner. However, basing a decision to add 800 employees solely on the owner’s positive experience in having previously added 20 employees is undeniably stupid. That decision has to be made through a careful analysis of the business’ current and projected sales, cash flows, capital assets, physical plant, production capabilities, managerial assets, market share, etc. No businessman in his right mind would risk bankrupting the whole operation based solely on idea that, because hiring 20 people was a net positive, adding another 800 would be that much better.
I’ll repeat a point I’ve made earlier because, as yet, nobody has really addressed it: America today is not the America of the late 1800s. During that earlier era of large-scale immigration, failure was most certainly an option. Nobody who came through Ellis Island had the slightest expectation that the government was going to provide them free housing, food, clothing, health care, etc. So, yes, the ones who came here were the most hard-working, ambitious people you could imagine. At the same time, our economy was such that there were virtually unlimited employment opportunities for unskilled labor whether in factories, on farms, or building railroads. If we adopted a policy of mass immigration today, the immigrants would not be able to find jobs with which to support themselves and they would place an enormous burden on our already depleted public coffers.
Another thing: I would argue that immigrants to the U.S. in the 19th century tended to assimilate because that was really the only means by which to rise up into the middle class. Today, masses of new immigrants who had no real opportunity or incentive to advance on their own merits (due to the lack of jobs and the benefits afforded them through our “safety net”) would likewise have no particular desire or incentive to assimilate into our culture. Great Britain and other parts of Europe have already witnessed this phenomenon. There are sections of European cities that even the authorities are essentially forced to treat as independent ethnic enclaves. Is there a particular reason we should want to replicate that experience here?
I think that it’s correct that a country has to prioritize the interests of its own citizens. But I would count the convictions of those who believe in looking out for all people in the world as among those interests.
So I actually know quite a few illegal immigrants from high school and from my most recent jobs. I’ve had long conversations with them in both Spanish and English. Occasionally we’ve gone out to eat together. They’re good friends of mine. And they work harder than anyone I know. I can think of two, literally two, born-and-grown Americans who work as hard as these ten friends of mine. This attitude:
This belief is simply incorrect. It takes guts and determination to immigrate to another country, and to stay there in a environment that’s hostile to them, working 60 hours a week. The people who successfully make that journey are, in a broad sense, exceptional. Not all of them will start businesses because not all of them are cut out to do so. A person can contribute to the economy and society without starting a business … in the case of my friends, they help businesses make profits. They also pay taxes (under their false TIN/SS) without ever receiving a SS or SNAP payout. They buy their own food and pay their own rent. They know they have to work for everything they get. The most socialist thing they do is ride the bus. Of the people I know, maybe one of them got into a car accident once …. they haven’t cost the community a thing, and they’ve spent a lot of money here.
Of course the scene is different along the border, but nothing I’ve said is fundamentally different. It still takes a lot of guts to cross the border. People who do so do not get free handouts; they work for everything they have. Not everyone crosses the border, which proves that those who do so are exceptional in some way.
I’m not so full of hubris as to say what I think immigration policy should be. I just wanted to speak up for my friends.
Rowan:
Thank you, Rowan.
Grace
Ben:
1) How many uneducated and unskilled would-be immigrants do you think apply for legal immigration status? You can’t turn away people who don’t apply, especially when they come to realize that they’ll never be approved.
2) Does the scope of what you describe as “turning away” include “arrested and deported” as well as “denied legal immigration”?
@ 72: I never said illegal aliens, to a person, are not hardworking or determined to succeed on their own. There are something like 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. currently. I’m sure MANY of them are hardworking, etc.
I’m not even talking about the current illegal alien population. The discussion is about the idea of freely admitting to this country essentially everyone in the world who wants to come here. Under that scenario, it will not take “guts and determination” to immigrate, just a desire to show up.
Also, while I don’t begrudge you your personal opinion of the illegal aliens you have personally known, it should hardly come as breaking news that a lot of illegal aliens have come here and committed hideous crimes in this country. So, yes, there is anecdotal evidence both pro and con as to the net contributions of illegal aliens.
There are also many horrifying anecdotes of crimes committed by non-immigrants. Crime anecdotes are an absolutely meaningless metric, because the more unusually horrible the crime, the stronger the anecdote.
Evidence indicates that immigrants (legal or not) are less likely to be violent criminals than non-immigrants, and increased immigration does not increase violent crime:
Neatly planting the meme in the audience’s mind that there exists a fear of immigrant criminals. A premise that should be examined.
Examples of violent crimes by illegal alien, given to lead in to ….
Which establishes that someone – and by extension we are to presume a certain number of people – have a fear of violent crime by illegal aliens.
Oh, good. Anecdotes are not evidence, after all. I presume that we’re going to see a formal statistical treatment to tell us if such a fear is actually justified by data, or not.
Here’s a researcher stating that he has investigated the matter and has found that such a fear is unwarranted. O.K. On what basis did he do so?
So the percent of the U.S. population composed of illegal aliens went from 1.4% to 3.6% (I pulled the overall U.S. population #’s out of Wikipedia) and the violent crime rate dropped 40%. That doesn’t prove anything, though. The violent crime rate from the native born and resident aliens could have dropped more than 40% to balance out a rise in violent crime by illegal aliens. That’s pretty obvious. Why was this even cited?
But … but … the fear that Ms. Espinoza has is of violent crime by illegal aliens, not immigrants as a class. How does this study have anything to do with the fear that Maria has?
Then we get citation of prison statistics, but the citation doesn’t give sufficient info of methodology to tell us if it’s got the same flaw.
Ms. Espinoza once again emphasizes that her issue is with violent crime by illegal aliens.
And once again ABC ignores that and conflates “illegal aliens” with “immigrants” as a class.
Well, then, why doesn’t ABC perform the role it is supposed to be playing in America by actually presenting data applicable to the issues?
Amp – this is bullshit. This article does not address the issue. In fact, it makes me suspect it’s intent was to deliberately obscure it.